So I have had this entry in my list of draft entries for some time now, waiting for some time or something to pull it together. This morning as I was going through my RSS reader I saw an entry entitled Conspiracy Code Intensive Reading (reading literacy through gaming) [VIDEO] posted by fellow CASTLE blogger Dangerously Irrelevant. Essentially the entry provides the promotional video for the latest Florida Virtual School‘s (FLVS) game-based courses (see FLVS Game: Conspiracy Code for my entry on their earlier game-based course).
Now those of you who know me already know that I think very highly of the FLVS and the work they do. And while I have been critical of some things in the past (e.g., their mobile apps – see Mobile Learning), as I have come to understand those fields better I have gained some appreciated for even the things I take issue with (although I still think our mobile learning could be so much more). Anyway, apparently the reason I had originally created this entry was because at some point (back in November I think), I saw the following tweet:
You see , this tweet across my digital desk shortly after I had returned from the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. One of the keynote speakers at the convention was Richard Clark, Professor of Educational Psychology and Technology and Director of the Center for Cognitive Technology at the University of Southern California. For those not in the field of educational or instructional technology, I firmly believe that Richard Clark is to educational technology what John Dewey was to education.
Anyway, there was a slide that he included in his keynote session that I thought was appropriate for this discussion.
Notice the middle bullet point. Now those of you who follow this blog know that one of my common complaints with K-12 online learning is that a lot of things are done because they can be done or because it serves someone’s political goals or because it seems intuitive. I’m all about doing things because they have been shown using empirical, methodologically reliable, external research. This belief was actually influenced by the works of Clark, among others. Based on that kind of criteria, Clark tells us the research has shown teaching using games to be less effective and more expensive.
The first time that Conspiracy Code came across my radar screen was back in October 2008 (see Florida Virtual School Presents Conspiracy Code at VSS 2008). That was two and a half years ago! To date, I have not seen any empirical, methodologically reliable, external research conducted on student learning using these game-based courses.
Another example of the practice of K-12 online learning not aligning with what we know about student learning?
As a side note, another of one of the slides from Clark’s keynote was:
More food for thought from the research community?
12 Unique Blogs Are Written By Professors
Virtual School Meanderings 
I’d love to see the evidence for some of his statements. I’m skeptical…
Comment by Scott McLeod — January 26, 2011 @ 5:34 pm |
Clark’s statements? His scholarship is long and prolific in this area, with the most famous likely being his 1983 Review of Educational Research piece, and his publication record has continued since…
Comment by mkbnl — January 26, 2011 @ 5:49 pm |
I want his sources for each bullet point. I don’t believe many of them as they are written on his slides and believe that, if I were so motivated (which, at the moment, I am not), probably could find contradictory research rebutting many of them. Just sayin’.
Comment by Scott McLeod — January 26, 2011 @ 7:45 pm |
Scott, which bullet points do you take issue with? Within the educational technology community, Clark is a well respected researcher (and generally represents the dominant view). One of the reasons his view has become the dominant one is because he examines the methodology of much of the “research” that is published for potential flaws or confounding variables. This is actually what led him to his original “delivery truck” metaphor, the fact that in most studies that compared student learning in a traditional environment vs. student learning using some form of educational media failed to control for confounding variables (and the one he pointed to the most was the change in pedagogy that often occurs).
Comment by mkbnl — January 26, 2011 @ 7:56 pm |
Came here from a tweet from Scott McLeod. Have to say, since I don’t know Clark’s work specifically, and I wasn’t there, it’s very difficult to know from a couple of bullets what he was actually saying. But for me, there are lot of ill defined terms here – what is “cyber learning”? How is “effective” being measured? What does “enhance learning” mean? “Cyber” can’t mean an interchangeable mix of online coursework, games, automated content delivery, multimedia delivered instruction, and computer based testing. You’ll never get any real understanding without distinguishing between these things.
There seem to be some things lumped together that are very different. For example, I would never expect that teaching using “interactive cyber worlds and multimedia presentations” would have similar results, those are very different things.
Is he talking about standardized tests alone as a measure of effectiveness? If his point is that assessment much match the instruction to be effective, then I would agree. It is a waste of time to have students spend hours in a game about history if all you are going to do as a “measure of effectiveness” is ask them what the 3 causes of WW2 were. It’s not a match. In that case, yes, the game would be “a waste of time”. But it doesn’t prove that learning did or didn’t happen, it just proves you measured the wrong thing.
Comment by sylvia martinez — January 27, 2011 @ 1:11 am |
Sylvia, my understand (and I missed the first part of his keynote) was that he operationalized cyerlearning based on the National Science Foundation’s definition in Fostering Learning in a Networked World: The Cyberlearning Opportunity and Challenge.
I suppose it may also help everyone to know that the keynote presentation was entitled “Recent Neuroscience and Cognitive Research Findings on Cyber Learning” and was described as:
For those unfamiliar with Clark’s work, it is seminal in the field of instructional technology/educational technology. The stuff most people are familiar with, and end up reading as a part of their graduate work, are the Clark-Kozma debates (also know as the Great Media Debate) of the mid-1990s. Clark’s seminal piece in this area was published in the Review of Educational Research in 1983, entitled “Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media“. The famous line from that piece is likely:
Basically, it is the instructional design principles that go into the creation of the content or the pedagogy involved in the delivery of the content that influences learning – not the presence or absence of media (i.e., using online learning, games and simulations, multimedia, etc.). The pre-2003 work, which I am most familiar with, focused upon reviewing the published research that had been conducted into how various media influence student learning.
For those familiar with this literature, Clark’s findings – and the bullet points above – shouldn’t surprise anyone. For example, if you examine the work of John Hattie you’ll reach the same conclusion. Hattie has created a career of analyzing meta-analysis to examine what factors actually influence student learning. His book, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, should be a must read for anyone involved in the practice of education (see Presentation: Visible Learning, Tomorrow’s Schools, The Mindsets That Make The Difference In Education – John Hattie for my most recent entry on Hattie and what his work means for K-12 online learning).
Comment by mkbnl — January 27, 2011 @ 9:22 am |
I would agree that if all you look at is a use of media to deliver content or instruction you will not see anything different. I also understand that that is what research does to try and get results without trying to understand the whole world.
My opinion is that this is a narrow view that misses exactly what the prime opportunities are for using tech, media and computers in education.
Comment by sylvia martinez — January 27, 2011 @ 9:46 am |
Sylvia, this is exactly what Clark is against everytime I have heard him speak. He always challenges researchers to look at the instructional design, motivational principles, and learning theory that go into the design and delivery of the instruction – as opposed to the tools used in that instruction.
Hence his view that cyberlearning, in and of itself, neither promotes student learning or increases student motivation. However, there are cyberlearning programs that are designed in such a way to increase student learning or student motivation, but it is the instructional design, motivational principles, and learning theory that makes the difference – and if we understand these three aspects better we should be able to apply the same principles to other mediums.
Comment by mkbnl — January 27, 2011 @ 10:01 am |
[…] Online Learning And Game-Based Learning […]
Pingback by Statistics For January 2011 « Virtual School Meanderings — January 31, 2011 @ 6:52 pm |
[…] Online Learning And Game-Based Learning/ […]
Pingback by Questions About K-12 Online Learning Research « Virtual School Meanderings — July 18, 2011 @ 2:59 pm |